can you take man a like Trump serious? really...he already set the bar, so there is nothing wrong keeping it there...

So, OSueco, you see right there is proof that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Trump's signal that it's fine to mock disabled people in such a juvenile manner for no other reason than to score a point at the podium is something that is now very much OK in today's society.

In my day, doing that in school assembly would probably have got you a detention and 100 lines. Today, post-Trump, it would score a win for the school debating society. Go figure.

The following 2 users would like to thank Sandgrounder for this useful post:

I have read both of their positions in detail posted on the internet (hint: try googling them) and both sound good.

I personally think the man presented himself as a boor. I'm not so sure if that is a veneer or not.

As far as I can tell the people who voted for him were formost interested in economic revival. Even if Trump has been a successful businessman (for the sake of argument let's just ignore if he interited money, cheated partners, paid the minimum tax, and produced things offshore), the question is does this mean that he has the grasp of economics which a president needs to influence the economy positively? I think not, and I am not alone in that opinion.

I was watching CNN this morning (yes, I know) and they were all abuzz with transition news - Trump and Obama will be meeting today at the White House.

Anyway, they were talking about likely cabinet members, and one of the commentators remarked that sub cabinet positions might be difficult to fill as so many Republicans refused to support Trump initially. But we'll see - when that cushy job comes calling, memories can be very short.

So all the sub cabinet employees have to be vetted, right - but what happens if the president wouldn't normally pass a security clearance. Guess it doesn't matter?

__________________
"Pictures of perfection, as you know, make me sick and wicked" ---- Jane Austen

You've made some good points in the rest of your post - about the low-skilled jobs, but even there it's debatable.
However, if we are to talk about the charisma each candidate had and/or about the sympathy/empathy they managed to transmit to the audience, and you still say you'd take Trump over Hillary because he scored better here, I don't know what else can be said. His message was anything but sympathetic to any segment of the population - he played his card on stirring the pot and polarising the votes.
I have to admit that he is a very clever political construct (ha ha, the anti-establishment guy) of the Republicans, so I don't worry that he will actually run the country.
I have no idea whether he will be a good president or not because he's only a puppet who enjoys the appearance of power and the image associated with said power.
So relax everybody, we've been there, done that.

We might have been there and done that but not while there are open grave conflicts going left and right around us. I think that might be the part we have not been through with a loose canon ball president.

Trump's signal that it's fine to mock disabled people in such a juvenile manner for no other reason than to score a point at the podium is something that is now very much OK in today's society.

In my day, doing that in school assembly would probably have got you a detention and 100 lines. Today, post-Trump, it would score a win for the school debating society. Go figure.

Bullying and obnoxiousness ("telling it like it is") seems to be admired these days. Perhaps this has come about since these contest/humiliation shows became popular, like The Weakest Link, Big Brother, eating grubs in the jungle, etc. Or could it also be because of a decline in empathy through Internet use and the kind of communication encouraged by social media? Twitter must be great for throwing insults. They're usually short and you don't even need to see the person.

The following 4 users would like to thank Reb77Br for this useful post:

I personally think the man presented himself as a boor. I'm not so sure if that is a veneer or not.

As far as I can tell the people who voted for him were formost interested in economic revival. Even if Trump has been a successful businessman (for the sake of argument let's just ignore if he interited money, cheated partners, paid the minimum tax, and produced things offshore), the question is does this mean that he has the grasp of economics which a president needs to influence the economy positively? I think not, and I am not alone in that opinion.

I will honestly admit, my knowledge of economics is not that deep, so I do have to take it at face value (both positions and the expert's opinions).

But as I said on that level this sounds good:

-Strengthen American manufacturing through a $10 billion investment in “Make it in America” partnerships
-Prevent countries like China from abusing global trade rules and reject trade agreements that don’t meet high standards
-no to trade deals, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that do not meet high standard of raising wages, creating good-paying jobs, and enhancing our national security.
-Revitalize the hardest-hit manufacturing communities by creating tax incentives to encourage investment in communities that have faced or are about to face significant manufacturing job losses.
-Crack down on companies that ship jobs and earnings overseas and create incentives for companies to bring back jobs to the U.S.
-Invest in America’s manufacturing workforce to ensure that it will always be the best in the world.

__________________
"You have reached the end of you free trial membership at BenjaminFranklinQuotes.com" -Benjamin Franklin

What planet are you on? Today people are far more censored for what they're "allowed" to say. There's a reason South Park came up with PC Principal last year.

Nope, not really. Open juvenile-style mocking of a disability by a politician with an audience has probably been a bit gauche for generations. Especially if you are using it to win a point because you can't actually come up with something factual and sensible to counter it. Then it's even more cringey.

I personally found the burning of Trump in effigy in LA to be as low and hateful as anything that Trump said. These are people protesting against what they see as a threat to a free and open society, yet for some perverse reason they seem to think that there is nothing wrong with stooping to any level whatsoever to get your soundbite in.

Caliban needs to look at his reflection to see whence it stems, he is impervious to having it pointed out to him.

The following 4 users would like to thank JagWaugh for this useful post:

I personally found the burning of Trump in effigy in LA to be as low and hateful as anything that Trump said. These are people protesting against what they see as a threat to a free and open society, yet for some perverse reason they seem to think that there is nothing wrong with stooping to any level whatsoever to get your soundbite in.

Caliban needs to look at his reflection to see whence it stems, he is impervious to having it pointed out to him.

I think it would be a very interesting experiment. I think everyone at some point has fancied that they might run the country better than the premier, but now we get to see what actually happens when all the compromises and trade-offs that you don't need to figure out when pontificating on your armchair become real constraints. When you are not a dictator, but rather need to convince other politicians with their own agendas to support you.

I will honestly admit, my knowledge of economics is not that deep, so I do have to take it at face value (both positions and the expert's opinions).

But as I said on that level this sounds good:

-Strengthen American manufacturing through a $10 billion "we have no idea how we can scrape up yet more cash" fund in “Make it in America” partnerships
-Prevent countries like China from abusing global trade rules and reject trade agreements that do meet high standards
-no to trade deals, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that insist on a high standard of raising wages, creating good-paying jobs, and enhancing our national security.
-Attempt to revitalize the hardest-hit manufacturing communities by creating tax incentives to encourage investment in communities that have faced or are about to face significant manufacturing job losses.
-Shit on companies that ship jobs and earnings overseas and bribe companies to bring back jobs to the U.S (except for his which will continue to manufacture overseas).
-Invest in America’s manufacturing workforce in the hopes that someday, maybe, it might be the best in the world.

Ftfy.

Last edited by Medea Fleecestealer; 10.11.2016 at 17:51.

This user would like to thank Medea Fleecestealer for this useful post: